100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Rights to life. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sky said: From my own personal viewpoint, I agree with those “moral standards”. And so I draw the conclusion that ultimately, all decision, moral, ethical, or otherwise, are, and cannot be anything but, based solely on personal viewpoint. There really are people who have no morals, and such individuals believe that the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters. No morals or ethical standards ever get in their way because none truly exist. In our society and in many others as well, these people are called psychopaths. Sky, there is a just and right moral standard that can be applied and if nothing else can be agreed on, then at least this one thing can—no human has the right to unjustly deprive another viable human of their life. That one standard becomes the beginning point for all other standard rights of a human—what others might you add? Maybe this one - no human has the right to unjustly and knowingly inflict physical harm to another? But what causes physical harm? Torture maybe? There might also be a standard moral standard which prevents any person(s) from owning another human, or maybe a moral which prohibits a person or group from preventing another the right to sustain his or her own life through legal means. Think about it, these really are morals that could be standardized for all humanity. But that just illustrates what my point really was – it’s dependent upon “personal viewpoint”. Whether that viewpoint is shared by anyone else or not, is irrelevant. Both of your examples serve to illustrate this. They both rely entirely on the interpretation of the word “unjustly”, which, being open to interpretation, then simply begs the question “Who decides?” I’ve never seen any proposed universal moral standard that didn’t suffer from the same malady. The simple question of “Who decides what is _____” (fill in the blank with whatever word/phrase/idiom you want – “moral”, “just”, “right”, “good”, take your pick or use something else – it doesn’t matter) always applies. The standard always boils down to a personal viewpoint because it must necessarily depend on an interpretation of whatever you fill in the blank with. The “psychotic” example is a completely different thing though. In that example you’ve simply provided a definition that is dependent on a specific moral standard – not an illustration of a universal moral standard. That is, you’ve just said “someone who has no morals is psychotic”. Now to be fair, I have to admit that the phrase “the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters” has promise. But I don’t see a way to wrangle that into a moral standard. The relationship between “desires” and “conduct” would appear to require interpretation and thus opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: *** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! *** Sky wrote: That is a commonly held belief. So common as to be cliche. What it actually results in is a justification for any action at all - as long as it is sanctioned by the majority. It is the exact same reasoning Hitler used for justifying his "racial cleansing". Poison Responded: This sounds like you are referring to prison if I commit a crime. My freedom doesn't mean that I can do whatever I please. There are rules in place that are required to ensure liberty for all. By breaking these rules you are declaring that you are unwilling to participate in the social contract... placing you outside the society. So – might there be yet ANOTHER standard human moral something like, All humans have the right to freely seek livelihood and pursue happiness as long as it does not impede others right to do the same. ? Keep writing, maybe we’ll find some more human moral standards… You got the statement-response mixed up there Redy. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think as human-kind are too much "up their own a**es", and that probably about 80% of the population think they make their own rules and can do as they please, they probably thought because cows can't talk, hit us etc that we were therefore better than them. Slaughter first think later. However we don't all determine are own actions that's why the governments there and lets face it they control us, so whoever said that god gave us free will and he's so amazing for doing that was wrong, god didn't want us to have free will he wanted us to follow rules and obey. therefore making satan the truely great one. But just to some it up, it's all the government they make the decisions and the only reason they're so cruel is because they're human, and animal would only be so cruel to us if it was to protect themselves or their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky said: From my own personal viewpoint, I agree with those “moral standards”. And so I draw the conclusion that ultimately, all decision, moral, ethical, or otherwise, are, and cannot be anything but, based solely on personal viewpoint. There really are people who have no morals, and such individuals believe that the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters. No morals or ethical standards ever get in their way because none truly exist. In our society and in many others as well, these people are called psychopaths. Sky, there is a just and right moral standard that can be applied and if nothing else can be agreed on, then at least this one thing can—no human has the right to unjustly deprive another viable human of their life. That one standard becomes the beginning point for all other standard rights of a human—what others might you add? Maybe this one - no human has the right to unjustly and knowingly inflict physical harm to another? But what causes physical harm? Torture maybe? There might also be a standard moral standard which prevents any person(s) from owning another human, or maybe a moral which prohibits a person or group from preventing another the right to sustain his or her own life through legal means. Think about it, these really are morals that could be standardized for all humanity. But that just illustrates what my point really was – it’s dependent upon “personal viewpoint”. Whether that viewpoint is shared by anyone else or not, is irrelevant. Both of your examples serve to illustrate this. They both rely entirely on the interpretation of the word “unjustly”, which, being open to interpretation, then simply begs the question “Who decides?” I’ve never seen any proposed universal moral standard that didn’t suffer from the same malady. The simple question of “Who decides what is _____” (fill in the blank with whatever word/phrase/idiom you want – “moral”, “just”, “right”, “good”, take your pick or use something else – it doesn’t matter) always applies. The standard always boils down to a personal viewpoint because it must necessarily depend on an interpretation of whatever you fill in the blank with. The “psychotic” example is a completely different thing though. In that example you’ve simply provided a definition that is dependent on a specific moral standard – not an illustration of a universal moral standard. That is, you’ve just said “someone who has no morals is psychotic”. Now to be fair, I have to admit that the phrase “the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters” has promise. But I don’t see a way to wrangle that into a moral standard. The relationship between “desires” and “conduct” would appear to require interpretation and thus opinion. All ethics are personal choices. But as paradoxical as that sounds that doesn't necessarily make them subjective because there should be some type of objective criterion used to determine right and wrong. For example, everything I do is to satisfy my own desires. Even when doing unpleasant things it is to achieve a desired goal. Whether you are a corporate elite who only desires a large bank account, a monk who lives a life of sacrifice or an addict injecting heroin, all your actions are based on your personal desires. But there are questions that each of us must answer: What do I want? Why do I want it? (This question includes SHOULD I want it) How SHOULD I get it? If there is a disconnect between these questions then you will fail, your desires will be frustrated, you will unsuccessfully attempt to reconcile the contradictions of your life or you will stop trying. I agree that what do I want is entirely personal choice, however, the thought process (logic) of moving from one question to the next is objective. To go one step further... The desire comes before the ethic. If my answer to the first question is heroin and then I realize from the second question that I should not desire that then I have the ability to suppress my desire. Generally (I only say generally because I am not sure it holds in every case but I think it does), you will only have to suppress a desire when it is in conflict with more primary desires. Example: I am married but I desire to sleep with my secretary. I suppress my desire because I value my marriage more and to entertain my desire would destroy my marriage. So if this is correct we may be able to find one (or more than one) primary desires that all humans have. If that is possible then that would be the foundation for morality that all humans share. As I said before (who knows how many pages back) I think the common desire is life. Life must be the primary desire otherwise you die -- in other words you can only live by taking actions. Those who choose to live must then answer the rest of the questions. Those who choose not to live (e.g., suicides) are dead and outside the realm of ethics since they can perform no actions. *** As I re-read what I wrote I am not happy with how I wrote it but I cannot put my finger on what I am unhappy with.*** |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Thu 08/20/09 01:42 PM
|
|
JaneStar1: *** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! *** Sky wrote: That is a commonly held belief. So common as to be cliche. What it actually results in is a justification for any action at all - as long as it is sanctioned by the majority. It is the exact same reasoning Hitler used for justifying his "racial cleansing". Jane Star1: Hitler, relying on SS, actually forced the society submit to HIS deranged will -- SOCIETY HAD NO CHIOICE*** Perhaps, I sould've clarify that the "cliche" above refers to the DEMOCRATIC society!_______*______ ********************************** . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky said: From my own personal viewpoint, I agree with those “moral standards”. And so I draw the conclusion that ultimately, all decision, moral, ethical, or otherwise, are, and cannot be anything but, based solely on personal viewpoint. There really are people who have no morals, and such individuals believe that the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters. No morals or ethical standards ever get in their way because none truly exist. In our society and in many others as well, these people are called psychopaths. Sky, there is a just and right moral standard that can be applied and if nothing else can be agreed on, then at least this one thing can—no human has the right to unjustly deprive another viable human of their life. That one standard becomes the beginning point for all other standard rights of a human—what others might you add? Maybe this one - no human has the right to unjustly and knowingly inflict physical harm to another? But what causes physical harm? Torture maybe? There might also be a standard moral standard which prevents any person(s) from owning another human, or maybe a moral which prohibits a person or group from preventing another the right to sustain his or her own life through legal means. Think about it, these really are morals that could be standardized for all humanity. But that just illustrates what my point really was – it’s dependent upon “personal viewpoint”. Whether that viewpoint is shared by anyone else or not, is irrelevant. Both of your examples serve to illustrate this. They both rely entirely on the interpretation of the word “unjustly”, which, being open to interpretation, then simply begs the question “Who decides?” I’ve never seen any proposed universal moral standard that didn’t suffer from the same malady. The simple question of “Who decides what is _____” (fill in the blank with whatever word/phrase/idiom you want – “moral”, “just”, “right”, “good”, take your pick or use something else – it doesn’t matter) always applies. The standard always boils down to a personal viewpoint because it must necessarily depend on an interpretation of whatever you fill in the blank with. The “psychotic” example is a completely different thing though. In that example you’ve simply provided a definition that is dependent on a specific moral standard – not an illustration of a universal moral standard. That is, you’ve just said “someone who has no morals is psychotic”. Now to be fair, I have to admit that the phrase “the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters” has promise. But I don’t see a way to wrangle that into a moral standard. The relationship between “desires” and “conduct” would appear to require interpretation and thus opinion. For example, everything I do is to satisfy my own desires. Even when doing unpleasant things it is to achieve a desired goal. Whether you are a corporate elite who only desires a large bank account, a monk who lives a life of sacrifice or an addict injecting heroin, all your actions are based on your personal desires. But there are questions that each of us must answer: What do I want? Why do I want it? (This question includes SHOULD I want it) How SHOULD I get it? If there is a disconnect between these questions then you will fail, your desires will be frustrated, you will unsuccessfully attempt to reconcile the contradictions of your life or you will stop trying. I agree that what do I want is entirely personal choice, however, the thought process (logic) of moving from one question to the next is objective. To go one step further... The desire comes before the ethic. If my answer to the first question is heroin and then I realize from the second question that I should not desire that then I have the ability to suppress my desire. Generally (I only say generally because I am not sure it holds in every case but I think it does), you will only have to suppress a desire when it is in conflict with more primary desires. Example: I am married but I desire to sleep with my secretary. I suppress my desire because I value my marriage more and to entertain my desire would destroy my marriage. So if this is correct we may be able to find one (or more than one) primary desires that all humans have. If that is possible then that would be the foundation for morality that all humans share. As I said before (who knows how many pages back) I think the common desire is life. Life must be the primary desire otherwise you die -- in other words you can only live by taking actions. Those who choose to live must then answer the rest of the questions. Those who choose not to live (e.g., suicides) are dead and outside the realm of ethics since they can perform no actions. *** As I re-read what I wrote I am not happy with how I wrote it but I cannot put my finger on what I am unhappy with.*** The only thing I can add is to offer something as a “primary desire that all humans have”. Actually, it applies to all life, not just humans. That is “survival”. And again, that is with the understanding that “survival” is not a black-and-white “alive or dead” thing, but is a very broad gradient scale going from “dead” at the bottom, to things like “appreciation of aesthetics” at the top. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
PoisonSting
on
Thu 08/20/09 06:32 PM
|
|
JaneStar1: *** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! *** Sky wrote: That is a commonly held belief. So common as to be cliche. What it actually results in is a justification for any action at all - as long as it is sanctioned by the majority. It is the exact same reasoning Hitler used for justifying his "racial cleansing". Jane Star1: Hitler, relying on SS, actually forced the society submit to HIS deranged will -- SOCIETY HAD NO CHIOICE*** Perhaps, I sould've clarify that the "cliche" above refers to the DEMOCRATIC society!_______*______ ********************************** . Hitler was elected democratically. In fact, the entire Nazi party came to power using the democratic process with their party's ideology clearly outlined years before Hitler became chancellor. I could go through and do the research if you like, but it was the democratic process that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Once the Nazi party gained control by a majority of votes they outlawed the creation of new parties and then systematically removed other parties from the political process to cement their power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can add is to offer something as a “primary desire that all humans have”. Actually, it applies to all life, not just humans. That is “survival”. And again, that is with the understanding that “survival” is not a black-and-white “alive or dead” thing, but is a very broad gradient scale going from “dead” at the bottom, to things like “appreciation of aesthetics” at the top. hmmmmm OK, all life forms have a desire to continue as a commonality. But humanity has a choice as opposed to animals who have instinct and plants who have biology. Animals do not choose their migratory patterns or cycles, their mating seasons or conditions, hibernation schedules or rules for determining social order. Instincts erase choice as they are biological compulsions. Humanity, absent instincts, relies on conscious choice and intellect to survive. Man chooses to live or die, reproduce or not, relocate or shape their environment. I think that maybe I should have represented it as a primary choice instead of a desire... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can add is to offer something as a “primary desire that all humans have”. Actually, it applies to all life, not just humans. That is “survival”. And again, that is with the understanding that “survival” is not a black-and-white “alive or dead” thing, but is a very broad gradient scale going from “dead” at the bottom, to things like “appreciation of aesthetics” at the top. hmmmmm OK, all life forms have a desire to continue as a commonality. But humanity has a choice as opposed to animals who have instinct and plants who have biology. Animals do not choose their migratory patterns or cycles, their mating seasons or conditions, hibernation schedules or rules for determining social order. Instincts erase choice as they are biological compulsions. Humanity, absent instincts, relies on conscious choice and intellect to survive. Man chooses to live or die, reproduce or not, relocate or shape their environment. I think that maybe I should have represented it as a primary choice instead of a desire... For example, how is a lion choosing which antelope to cut from the herd categorically different from and a man choosing which type of bread to buy in a grocery store? What you appear to be saying is something like “All animal actions are stimulus-response, whereas some human actions are not.” Now I’m not going to go down the road of asking you to prove that statement because I think that would be pointless. I’ll simply say that personally, I have not seen anything that indicates to me that it is impossible for it to be otherwise, and I have seen things that indicate to me that it could very well be otherwise.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Thu 08/20/09 07:59 PM
|
|
I'm pretty sure that future scientists will be as amused by our notions of 'instinct' - as we are (or at least I am) amused by the efforts to prove all planetary motion was based on pure circles.
There are differences between humans and non-humans animals, but its not so black and white. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 08/20/09 08:42 PM
|
|
There are differences between humans and non-humans animals, but its not so black and white. Depending on what you mean by "differences" I would agree. If you talking about "behavioral" differences, then yes, those differences are very difficult to pin down. And obviously, the "genetic" differences are very easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as my understanding of instincts, I do not believe that animals have a choice when it comes to specific survival behaviors. They have a biological imperative which locks out choices.
Polar bears don't have a choice to hibernate nor do they have to be taught how to do it. It is an instinct designed to aid their survival by lowering their metabolism for a period when food sources are scarce. Why not simply migrate? It has to be more than their size since larger animals migrate to follow food sources. However, it is part of their yearly cycle. Polar bear females mate, increase their body mass while food is plentiful and then hibernate during gestation, giving birth before emerging. The existing behavior makes sense and it works. But were a particularly smart polar bear figure out a better way of doing things, their biology would still restrict them. Herd behaviors are compulsions. If you were an antelope in a herd that needed to cross a crocodile infested river, would you not consider slipping to the back of the pack to cross last?? I would. The members in the front get pushed in because them members in the pack are only aware that they MUST GO THAT WAY. Heat is a biological compulsion to mate, they are slaves to their metabolism. [I think] that if specific factors are missing, such as a drought, females will not enter heat but if all the factors are present they do. Animals engage in rigidly controlled conflicts. They move through specific stages and give specific signals depending on the threat. They do not have to learn these behaviors, they are hardwired in. A mongoose will ALWAYS kill a cobra because cobras ALWAYS follow the same patterns. I am not an animal expert, but it seems to me that if members of the same species engages in the same behaviors without having to be taught those behaviors, and they repeat them flawlessly; then those are instincts and freewill is absent. This is not to say that other behaviors are not learned, they are. Hunting in particular must be learned. Certain socialization skills must be acquired as well. Where the line is drawn, I am not sure. How much of animal behavior is compelled by instinct or how much is learned I don't know. I am not even sure if some of what I mentioned is completely factual (e.g., I know from experience that migratory birds like ducks who are fed all year long will break their migratory patterns). But I am of the opinion that freewill is all or nothing [not completely sure about this point either]. Humans do have stimulus-response behaviors, but they can be over ridden consciously. They do occur when the reptile brain doesn't give the higher level brain time to function. But given time choice is allowed. When startled a person will recoil in defense until the information is processed and a conscious choice is made. Sometimes fear paralyzes the ability to make a choice and that can lead to lethal results. Just me thinking out loud. If I have gotten anything wrong or if anyone can clarify or rebuke any of my statements I would appreciate it. My knowledge on the subject comes strictly from having Animal Planet on in the background. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Thu 08/20/09 11:14 PM
|
|
JaneStar1: *** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! *** Sky wrote: That is a commonly held belief. So common as to be cliche. What it actually results in is a justification for any action at all - as long as it is sanctioned by the majority. It is the exact same reasoning Hitler used for justifying his "racial cleansing". Jane Star1: Hitler, relying on SS, actually forced the society submit to HIS deranged will -- SOCIETY HAD NO CHIOICE*** . PoisonSting: Hitler was elected democratically. In fact, the entire Nazi party came to power using the democratic process with their party's ideology clearly outlined years before Hitler became chancellor. I could go through and do the research if you like, but it was the democratic process that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Once the Nazi party gained control by a majority of votes they outlawed the creation of new parties and then systematically removed other parties from the political process to cement their power. *--I really hate doing this -- since that would side-track the discussion -- but since I was wrongfully accused in public of being a mindlessFool, I don't see any other way but responding with the same... ***>Listen, Sting, before you point your little Poison finger -- accusing others of being wrong -- you Really should do the research, because, EVIDENTLY, you really don't know a lot of things -- especially about History! Do you even know that when the first fascists appeared on the streets in the late 1920s, they have been ridiculed and beatten mercilessly... But their patriotic rhetoric slowly gathered more and more of the unemployed youth. (German intellectuals used to despise that party -- and paid dearly when it finally came to power) * The only reason the party came to power was because they used to terrosize those who refused supporting them... So, in 1936, during the election, everybody voted for the Nazis out of fear for their well-being! (i.e. NOT of their Democratic free will !!!) And the rest is History... So, my dear "poisoned mind", before you ever raise your voice, you better do some research, gether facts, and develope a valid opinion -- rather than just discrediting others with your CHILDISH (i.e. unreasonable/FOOLISH) claims!!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I guess, you chose the wrong opponent's eyes for pulling the wool over... Nice try, better luck next time!!!  P.S. My point remains uncontested: *** DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! *** Therefore, when a mass inoculation is announced, it would be extremely foolish resisting -- thereby exposing yourself to the risk of being infected by other low-life "individuals" who disregard the reason (for the fear their freedom might be limited!!!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so be it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SORRY, BUT I'D ACCEPT NO OTHER APPOLOGY THAN
YOUR DROPPING TO YOUR KNEES AND KISSING MY FEET!!! (AND WATCH THAT FRISKY TONGUE OF YOUR'S...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fusion, thank you for elaborating on your point of view. I don't like to bicker over semantics, but sometimes its the best route to mutual understanding; and I'm still not conivinced that 'meant' is the best word for your meaning, as it suggests predestination and intention, with an implication of 'ought' and 'should'. According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mean, I think you mean: "To design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end" I agree we have an omnivore structure to our bodies, and omnivore capacity. I don't agree we are 'meant' to eat meat - and this is not because I am currently eating a vegan diet, nor because I am displeased by factory farming. In fact, in some ways I support hunting and farms managed with compassion. In general, I think the whole notion that we are 'meant' for anything based on our bodies structure or capacity is completely flawed, and a terrible basis for asking 'what should I do' ? Basically, I'm trying to say, like you, that just because you can do something doesn't mean you "should". Now you are talking about capacity, rather than intention or predestination. So why say we are 'meant' to eat meat? Why not say that we 'can' eat meat? This use of the word 'meant' reminds me also of arguments that were made long ago (well... not that long ago) for why women were the 'inferior' sex and why people of different skin colors were appropriately treated in different ways. Different kind of people were 'meant' for different things. This has nothing to do with veganism, and everything to do with what is implied by the word meant. On the other hand, this is who we are. Omnivore structure is part of who we are. Omnivore habits? You are saying this is an inherant, undeniable aspect of being a homo sapiens? Again this same kind of argument has been used & abused a great deal to rationalise things we now recognize as immoral in the past. Sexism, rape, slavery, the list goes on. This is what I was talking about when you mentioned that proteins from animals "sparked" our advancement and allowed our brains and bodies to grow better then what they were doing when we merely ate fruits and tubers. I accept this suggestion about the distant past. Today, we have refridgerators and blenders and ovens and distribution systems and most people in industrialized nations are getting too many calories and probably too many meat-based fats. If you are starving or meat is your choice of food, then that is what is one your mind, not: "Is this right what I'm doing, am I wrong for killing this animal?" This is a bit of a tangent, but there are rare individuals who will ask themself this question, even as they are starving. A reliable friend told me his relative (in India) decided he was ready to die, and willfully fasted himself to death - in other words, he had that level of control, intention, choice. Most people are victim to their own unexamined and not-understood drives. Maybe in the future we can break away from this practice of raising animals with advances in science, like turning inorganic into organic "foodstuffs". If this does happen, then I would argue that it is wrong to kill for food Why??? I understand the point you were making with your size being larger than a woman and does that mean you "should" rape. Earlier in our history, this is exactly what men would do. You are bigger, you desire something, take it. But morally, this is wrong and damages personality or self. But are we damaged as people because we eat animals, I really don't think so. The person who did the raping was not damaged (in certain cultures). This development of ethics prohibiting rape is not preservation of self! Think about this. (1a) You identify women as part of your 'group' worthy of protection from the harm of rape. (1b) The raper did not. (2a) Some people identify non-human animals as enough of 'part of their group' as to be worthy of protection from certain kinds of abuse. (2b) Some people do not. How broad, how encompassing is our caring? Speaking of which: Bushido & Red I didn't have net access earlier, but I really appreciate the spirit and ideas you guys are putting forward in this thread! (I'm off to an all you can eat salad bar!) I see the point on the definition of "meant". But you give my arguement credibility when you say the definition: "predestined, destined, designed." Now, I'm an atheist, so I can't use creationism for support or religous sentiments. If I wanted to cheat, I could say "Well, the higher power already had us all planned out and knew the structure of our bodies and what it would need, so there ya go!" But that is the easy way out. I can turn to genetics and say that as we evolved, our DNA, RNA and chromosones responded to proteins and other acids that came from animals. With this route, I might be able to say that we are indeed "meant" to consume animals because that is what our genetics is telling us to do. I realize there have been several other views on genetics in this thread, so this is my little spin on it. Bees are meant to consume nectar from flowers and create in their bodies honey and royal jelly. Do they really have achoice in this? No, not really. But they do this to survive, they do this to raise their young. Now I know we will get into instinct and the "hardwiring" of a species to perform certain tasks. I feel that we are "hardwired" in the same way, we just have the ability to sit back and wonder about it. As for your question of "WHY???", I think that if we advance far enough socially as well as scientifically, our ethics and morals will become more evolved, more perfected and we will truly view all life as something precious. This is not an uncommon view today, but as you see from my comments, bring on the Beef!. If there was another choice of a protein substitute that had all the perks of cows, I'd be down for it and I wouldn't eat another cow. There are soy proteins and I eat those after a workout, but they just don't compare. This is very revealing about how selfish I really am. Now to the rape issues. Is not fear, fear of harm and pain, fear of "losing" self an arguement for preserving self? Women are not the only part of our "group" that need protecting from rape. Men have been raped, children (both sexes) and GASP, even animals. I argue that the development of the ethics prohibiting rape stems to preserve the collective self as well as individual self. Can't wait to hear from you! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe in the future we can break away from this practice of raising animals with advances in science, like turning inorganic into organic "foodstuffs". If this does happen, then I would argue that it is wrong to kill for food Why??? I think that if we advance far enough socially as well as scientifically, our ethics and morals will become more evolved, more perfected and we will truly view all life as something precious. This is not an uncommon view today, but as you see from my comments, bring on the Beef!. Do you prefer the ethics of our society, which generally disapproves of rape, slavery, and murder, to the ethics of those cultures which see nothing wrong with rape, slavery, or murder? If so, then maybe you can see that 'appealing to popular opinion' is a questionable way to come to an ethical position. Popular opinion in the South, of the US, not to long ago, was that it was okay to enslave blacks. Yet you seem to have made several appeals to popular opinion in your posts here, and above it seems like maybe you are suggesting that you might change your personal ethics if the ethics of our society changes. If that is your choice, thats your choice. Is that a your choice? Is that a good choice? Do you think 'popular opinion' makes for a good 'authority' when a person is developing their personal ethics? If there was another choice of a protein substitute that had all the perks of cows, I'd be down for it and I wouldn't eat another cow. There are soy proteins and I eat those after a workout, but they just don't compare. This is very revealing about how selfish I really am. (I'm far more interested in the larger issues of 'how one comes to an ethical position' that just the topic of veganism, etc.) There is often something to be gained by being a bit more specific; I was hoping you would be more specific in response to my last question. So which perks are you talking about? Convenience? Cost? Flavor? Texture? Nutrient density? Which nutrients? Amino-acid profile? The ability to 'fit in' with your culture? Or the pleasure of knowing that an animal was killed for your meal? Some people even get a certain pleasure from being gratuitously wasteful, it makes them feel powerful/wealthy. If you say that you would stop killing animals for food if we had the technology to provide a substitute, what do you require of this substitute? Now, I'm an atheist, so I can't use creationism for support or religous sentiments. If I wanted to cheat, I could say "Well, the higher power already had us all planned out and knew the structure of our bodies and what it would need, so there ya go!" Which is also reminiscent of the argument some theists use to justify prejudice against homosexuals, if I may be redundant. Does that not strike you as wrong? Have you ever had a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian (say, found at a protest) who thinks that all homosexuals are abominations? Have you ever tried to reason with them on the question of whether we are 'meant' to be heterosexual? But that is the easy way out. Look at the patterns of people's thinking/discussion. Its not just the easy way out, it functions as a justification, usually an unexamined justification, for a whole host of questionable beliefs/behaviors. I can turn to genetics and say that as we evolved, our DNA, RNA and chromosones responded to proteins and other acids that came from animals. With this route, I might be able to say that we are indeed "meant" to consume animals because that is what our genetics is telling us to do. Here is the 'meat' of the issue. We agree about qualities of our structure. We agree about our capacity. We agree that 'ought' and 'should' are subject to our ability to think and choose; and yet you appeal to this concept of 'meant' as if it had significance to our choices. If you think we have a genetic predilection, you can say 'a genetic predilection' without appealing to predestination. I have yet to see someone invoke the concept of 'meant' without there being an implication of 'should' (though sometimes that implication is unexamined). Regarding rape, my original point is that structure and capacity are not reliable guides for ethical choices. Nor is any kind of appeal for what we are meant to do, based on structure, capacity, inclination. All of these have been used to justify rape. In that light, most of your comments about rape seem completely tangential to me, except for the following: I argue that the development of the ethics prohibiting rape stems to preserve the collective self as well as individual self. Ah, so the 'development of the ethics' - landing us at where we are today. Which is not the pinnacle, but its where we are, so lets just go with it, eh? So - is it enough for you to just live according to the ethics of your culture? Or are you the least bit curious as to why and how such horrible things were condoned, so recently? Its 'the natural order of things'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do I prefer our ethics about rape, murder and slavery as opposed to other cultures? Would I change my ethics if society's changed, "go with the flow" so to speak? Do I think popular opinion is a good place to start when developing an ethical system?
How is it that society's ethical views change is a question I have for you. I'll try and answer myself: A society's ethical system changes as a result of a small group in that society that wants to change the current system. You use slavery as your example. How is it that our country's views changed from the "popular opinion"? Small changes over a long period of time eradicatd this practice & it really did take a long time. Did I prefer this "popular opinion"? No. I have my own ethical system that developed over my lifetime but it started with what my parents, peers and other adults in my life felt was the right thing to do, or in other words "popular opinion." Would I change if someone showed me a better viewpoint than what I was used to looking at? Sure, it's not wrong to change, it is my right. Do you feel it is wrong to "switch sides" so to speak? I can evaluate a position of a person and come up with my own views on if it is ethical or not either by personnal repulsion or by personnal admiration. So, to your first question, I don't prefer some of the ethical views of my country, because it is my choice and right, and I can't really knock another cultures because that is their right. Their ethical views are what are acceptable to their culture, I can try to change their views, but they really don't have to listen. Ethical views are ingrained in childhood, only being "sanded" away as one becomes more mature. So, as to my substitute, I would require that it provides me with all the nutritional needs for my diet. Nutrionists aren't even sure what these needs are, but they have some guidelines. I say that it would be wrong because then I wouldn't need to kill the animal for food, it can be as happy as it wants. But the animals in question now wouldn't be alive if we hadn't modified them for ourselves. Does this mean I'm changing my views to "fit in"? Yes, it does in some sense, who wants to be the odd man out? That was rather childish, but if I see that it is a better way for all parties in question, then I would change because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now this next part always ends up as a thread killer, but I'll chug ahead. I am homosexual and I have been called abomination, sinner, monster and the list would go on to fill 3 more pages. I've had many a conversation with these people and you are right, I can't change their ethical and religous views because they are so engrained in their personality. They don't want to be seen as not having followed the "popular opinion." So, yes it strikes me as wrong because I am the target of their discriminations, but I was just "creationism" as a point. I'll get back to this later, I got a call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fusion, I may not have time in the next 2-3 days - I don't think you killed this thread, it was winding down anyway, & most people who post in scince/phil. don't trip on orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has raised some excellent points. I personally commend all who are participating. The following quote, although I do not remember who wrote it, concerns the existence of a common primary desire in all humans.
So if this is correct we may be able to find one (or more than one) primary desires that all humans have. If that is possible then that would be the foundation for morality that all humans share. The need to be accepted and valued as a human being strikes me as the most fundamental need that each human shares. With individuality comes differences in personal preference, and thus, in order to satisfy each individual's need to be valued as a person, we must maintain a mindset which allows the acceptance of a wide range of personal desire and choice. |
|
|
|
|
